Talk:Pennsylvanian (geology)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Pennsylvanian (geology). The consensus to move is clear and unanimous. With the agreement of the nominator, the argument in favor of the addition of the disambiguating term "(geology)" also has consensus support. Xoloz (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Clearly this is easily likely to mean a person from the state of Pennsylvania. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - and also express same concern at the apparent geological bias of the underlying article. We shouldn't be using North American continent geological periods to talk about Africa and Asia. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relax... the Pennsylvanian's subparts all have very Russian names. =)  We're just following the nomenclature established by the International Commission on Stratigraphy. — Jaydiem (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Red Slash 23:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified support: While I agree that the title of this article could benefit from more specificity, I disagree that adding the word "age" is the best way to do it. Two reasons:

(1)   In the context of stratigraphy, "age" is a term with a specific meaning that would be incorrect to use here; the Pennsylvanian time period is an epoch, not an age.

(2)   In stratigraphy, "Pennsylvanian" (and all other such appellations) refers to both a time period and a rock layer (or set of layers), and different terms are used for each; in the Pennsylvanian case, the terms are epoch for the time period, and series for the rock layers. The use of one of these terms in the article title inappropriately excludes the other.

— Reference: International Chronostratigraphic Chart

Therefore, I submit that this article should be moved to

Mississippian age article should be moved to Mississippian (geology), as I will propose shortly.) — Jaydiem (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, they're considered sub-systems or sub-periods, but that doesn't change the validity of your arguments - ages they're not. Mikenorton (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're saying. Strictly speaking, the series/epochs are the Lower Pennsylvanian, the Middle Pennsylvanian, and the Upper Pennsylvanian, so plain old "Pennsylvanian" is a superset intermediate between them and the Carboniferous system/period—hence, "sub-system" and "sub-period". (Personally, I think I'd prefer "super-series" and "super-epoch", but nobody asked me. ;-) — Jaydiem (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to moving this to

Mississippian age to Mississippian (geology), which I submit can be done speedily as a noncontroversial move). bd2412 T 19:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your support! Regarding the Mississippian article: I didn't want to just move it myself, because the previous move discussion was closed only a week ago. Don't want to step on toes needlessly. — Jaydiem (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Pennsylvanian (geology) per Jaydiem. Mikenorton (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC) [ friendly edit by Jaydiem =) ][reply]
• Comment. I don't think this is as ambiguous as
  Mississippian age" for that RM because it seemed more common than alternatives like "Mississippian period", "... subperiod" or "... epoch", but if some other term is preferable according to the consensus in the field, we should go with that. Especially if the article is also supposed to cover the "Pensylvanian series" rock layer, a solution that suits both meanings will be better.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.